This article was downloaded by: [220.255.2.

121] On: 02 July 2011, At: 02:21 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental Politics
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fenp20

Paradoxes of increased individuation and public awareness of environmental issues

Andy Scerri
a a

Global Cities Research Institute, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Available online: 24 Jul 2009

To cite this article: Andy Scerri (2009): Paradoxes of increased individuation and public awareness of environmental issues, Environmental Politics, 18:4, 467-485 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010903007344

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

Environmental Politics Vol. 18, No. 4, July 2009, 467485

Paradoxes of increased individuation and public awareness of environmental issues

Andy Scerri*
Global Cities Research Institute, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

Since the 1990s, politicising the environment has often involved the development of green concepts of citizenship. Informed by these concepts, cultural anthropology is used to examine prevailing ideas and practices of stakeholder citizenship. Of central concern are conditions wherein heightened individuation coincides with increased awareness of environmental issues. In the prevalence of stakeholder citizenship norms, the social task of addressing the ecological challenge is represented as individual opportunities and personal responsibilities. One upshot of this is that, as stakeholders, citizens are led to feel personally responsible for resolving socially created problems. In such contexts, increased awareness of environmental issues has the paradoxical eect of compromising citizens ethical commitments within the ecosphere. By privileging managed consultation over motivating citizens politically, the normalising of stakeholder citizenship poses a problem for green politics by making it dicult to put sustainability into practice, while obscuring the unsustainability of much social activity. Keywords: citizenship; individualism; personal responsibility; environmental awareness; environmental ethics

Introduction Across the West, mainstream political parties now embrace public environmental awareness as part of vote-winning electoral strategies, while large and small businesses respond to green concerns. Laudable as these things might be, however, green political theorists continue to criticise as ineectual or at least as insucient the ecological modernisation and action-free spin that seem the primary products of state and corporate environmental policies (Beder 2000, Martinez-Alier 2002, Monbiot and Prescott 2006). Recognising the existence of such a gulf between awareness and practice implies that, although welcome, the shift from activist-centred to more broad-based environmentalism has
*Email: andy.scerri@rmit.edu.au
ISSN 0964-4016 print/ISSN 1743-8934 online 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09644010903007344 http://www.informaworld.com

468

A. Scerri

important political dimensions. Increased public environmental awareness brings with it a requirement for eorts to clarify if such awareness is aecting sustainable practices and how that is, under what conditions sustainability might better be implemented. As increased demands for employment exibility, workplace autonomy and creativity combine with widespread yet uneven auence and high levels of participation in leisure-consumption activities, mainstream parties have recently taken to addressing enlightened stakeholders based in perceived demands for a new politics centred upon concerns for well-being and sustainability (Guha 2004, p. 3, Hamilton 2006, p. 54, Jenkins 2006). My argument here is that such ideas of citizenship represent solutions to the ecological challenge as personal opportunities and responsibilities, and that this is a problem for green politics. Indeed, partially a product of institutional responses to heightened levels of environmental awareness, stakeholder citizenship links sustainable practices to emending the self. My concern is that such ideas of citizenship privilege atomistic voluntarism as if this were sucient as the Wests strategy for facing the ecological challenge. Through a number of examples, I examine how government and business practices that foster stakeholder citizenship work to neutralise politically, actions directed at achieving sustainable ways of life. Framing the discussion is recent research that connects green politics with citizenship (Barry 2006, Dobson 2003, Dobson and Bell 2006, Dobson and iz 2005). By recognising that the form of citizens daily lives their Valencia Sa participation in the widest sense is what shapes the contours of sustainability itself, such research links sustainable social practices with concepts of active or critical sustainability citizenship (Dobson 2006, p. 224). Meanwhile, others argue that citizenship of itself might be somewhat problematic for these ends, because of its strong methodologically individualistic undertones. These recognize a need for research that addresses the deeply individuated nature of liberal citizenship, and aims at promoting the collective dimension of social life (van der Heijden 2007, p. 161; see also Agyeman and Evans 2006, Smith 2005, Seyfang and Smith 2007). These aim at drawing upon and extending the democratic impulse that has long been one of the hallmarks of environmentalism (Latta 2007, p. 378), bringing sustainability and justice together as shared concerns. A key proposition in all of these arguments is that eorts to reconceptualise both how people live and the norms that people live by can help to normalise practices that sustain rather than degrade the ecosphere. Said to form part of a third wave of green theorising, work that is more abstract brings into question how shifting societal conditions aect relationships between knowledge, awareness and practice (Barry 2007, p. 688). Richard Dagger has argued that concepts of freedom and rights central to both theories and practices of liberal citizenship make the task of facing the ecological challenge dicult. For him, the job of Ecological Science consists in helping people to see . . . that they are not apart from nature so much as a part of it. This is because, It is our freedoms and rights as persons that must be

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

Environmental Politics

469

reconsidered if we are to . . . address the ecological challenge brought on by people who have been acting freely and, for the most part, within their rights as ordinarily understood (Dagger 2006, pp. 200, 209210). Aimed at historical re-reading or green re-interpretation of the Western political canon, such green theorising also explores some of the ideological and psycho-social constraints that relatively auent, economic growth-oriented and technologically developed liberal democracies can place on eorts to change practices that damage or exploit the ecosphere (Barry 2007, p. 688; see also Nash and Lewis 2006). Informed by such research, I bring a cultural anthropological approach to contemporary citizenship in the West. To these ends, I rst look to research that links the historical intertwining of cultural materialism and individualism in the early-modern West with the political formation of citizen-centred liberal democracies. This brief exegesis centres upon the generalised dissimulation of the Self from Others and the World, and with the counter-cultural challenges to the predominance of such modern articialism (Dumont 1986, p. 55) that are often associated with Western modernisation. This concept frames the approach of the discussion to changes over time, from the prevalence of classical to social and, more recently, stakeholder norms of citizenship in the Western liberal democracies. The main section of the article focuses upon examples of practices and discourses associated with stakeholder citizenship. Thus, the approach moves from abstract and speculative to more concrete and normative theorising. Orienting the overall argument is a claim that in the predominance of stakeholder citizenship, hitherto marginalised countercultural actions aimed at placing a check on the articial separation of human being from the world as a unitary whole now support many of the conditions that exacerbate such dualism. The cost of such a transformation is that persons are called upon to defer many aspects of their ethico-political commitments within the ecosphere. That is, stakeholder citizenship deepens those aspects of Western culture and ideology that are premised upon an atomistic severance of Self from Others and the World. In short, the prevalence of such norms make it dicult to politicise ethical commitments because devaluing links between (private) morality and (collective) reasons for acting. I conclude by outlining some of the diculties that seeing things in these terms raises for green politics. Modern articialism Cultural anthropologists have sought to understand contemporary conditions in comparative and historical ways: that is, by asking what it is to be human, in a distinct societal context and at a particular historical conjuncture. In these terms, the emergence of liberal-democratic citizenship can be understood as a political consequence of the synthesis of cultural materialism and individualism that took place within the West from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries onwards. The plethora of goods that came into use in the early-modern

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

470

A. Scerri

West through colonisation and industrial development, for example did so amidst a Judaeo-Christian culture that emphasised the salvation of the soul through individuals worldly actions. The materialism that arose was a sociocultural system in which material interests are not made subservient to other social goals (Polanyi 2001, Sahlins 1972), such as harmony with some or other cosmological principle. In this atmosphere, ecclesiastic and subsequently feudal authority came to be understood as constraints upon individuals subjection to the will of God. As the techniques and knowledges associated with the uses of material goods became more important within society (Mukerji 1983, p. 12), the relatively direct union with the divine central to Judaeo-Christianity gave rise to a peculiar ideology of Western individualism (Dumont 1986, p. 10). This cultural-ideological syncretism brings atomistic individuals to the centre of the universe, which appears both socially structured and subjectively experienced as something comprehensible on objective terms: as matter, forces and energy. Indeed, the belief-system that had once oered refuge from this imperfect world in another [transcendent] one (Dumont 1986, p. 55) underwent a metamorphosis; Western individualism and its subjective correlate modern articialism emerged as central principles of societal reproduction. By contrast with traditional ideological holism, individuals in modernising conditions that is, as holders of free labour in capitalistic markets where time and space are liberated from myth and tradition as clock-time and empty space, for example (Giddens 1990, pp. 1719) are called upon to identify the world with their own subjective wills.1 Modern articialism is, thus, the application to worldly aairs of personal will-objectives that are, in eect, the concentration within individuals wills of objectively true reality (Dumont 1986, pp. 5556). In short, modern articialism is the radical dissimulation of Self from World and Others, the generalizing of which heralds the Wests Promethean moment (Dumont and Delacampagne 1981, p. 6). Such are the conditions for what Max Weber (1958, p. 339) describes as a subjectivist culture, wherein morally autonomous individuals inhabit a disenchanted world of potentially knowable material dimensions existing objectively, devoid of ethico-moral encumbrances. In the context of cultural materialism, the generalising of modern articialism belies the formation of an atomised subjectivity emphasising moral autonomy and personal exemplarity within an alienated and externalised universe. While in most other civilizations people consider themselves to be part of a whole which both surrounds and goes beyond them, in the West the individual is seen as an elementary particle of society (Supiot 2007, p. 14) and the highest social value (Dumont 1986, p. 217). Put dierently, in modernising conditions the biological instinct for selfpreservation (Biro 2005, p. 159), hitherto constrained by an all-encompassing and explicit holism, is cut loose and individuals are eectively left to their own devices amidst a nature that emanates objective, positively knowable laws. As the world becomes the artice of individual wills, binding holistic norms including many of those associated with the inexorably inter-relational commonalities and

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

Environmental Politics

471

continuities indispensable for social existence manifest as limitations upon a creative and self-orienting subjectivity. Rather, that is, than as some or other binding totality that conrms subjectivity in relation to myth and tradition, history and the past. Persons, faced with adversity, are articially set against an objectied universe of material forces and must decide what to do as if for themselves. In this argument, self-preservation is not necessarily identical with self-interest. Self-preservation implies the basic tendency for any biological organism to seek to go on in a given context. By contrast, self-interest refers to the kinds of practices that self-preservation tends to involve in modernising Western conditions. This is what political economists would come to see as the quintessential modern condition: atomised individuals bound over to maximise personal utility amidst a natural eld of matter, forces and energy. Recognising the emergence of modern articialism amidst Judaeo-Christian insistence on equalitarianism between human souls is thus helpful for thinking about the paradoxical nature of a politics of citizenship instituted around ideals of individual liberty, interpersonal equality and unity of common interests. That is, such a view oers a means for understanding the emergence of liberal citizenship norms in cultural and political terms.2 In modernising conditions, Western individuals lives came to be stretched across a competitive marketcentred public arena, demanding personal detachment, professional skills, calculative and acquisitive dispositions and a sphere of intimacy (Habermas 1989, p. 28) emphasising human warmth and cultivation of an autonomous subjectivity and self-expressive soul. That is, a peculiar cultural-ideological chiasmus characterised politics amidst the expansion of capitalistic markets, techno-scientic claims to objective knowledge and national states exercising abstract authority through codied law. The citizenship norms that were instituted by Western individuals came to be founded upon property ownership and public engagement as well as on a saturated and free interiority and personal creativity (Habermas 1989, p. 56). Citizens of liberal democracies are on the one hand property-owning individuals, while on the other hand they are individual specimens of humanity in general. Seen in this way, the conditions that framed the political success of claims for free and equal citizenship also supported a counter-mandatory bourgeois culture of arts and letters. Such a counter-culture could assert an innerworldly sensuality opposed to the competitive rough and tumble of public engagements, and an aestheticism that diverts moral autonomy into private judgements about taste and authenticity. While a mainstream sought to force political stasis based in Natural Law, its non-conformist alternative held property in disregard, and pursued disorder through immediate experiences and sensory gratication (Habermas 1989, pp. 3233, 35). In its mainstream register, an alien external world is overcome by means of self-discipline aimed at domination, appropriation and the establishing of hegemony through exclusion and possession. The presumption is that norms are justied by Natural Law. In its countercultural register, a strongly felt aestheticism is oriented to achieving unity with an external natural order, from which the self

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

472

A. Scerri

is overtly alienated. The alternative presumption is that nature must be justied, in its naturalness, in relation to social norms. As mainstream classical liberal citizenship challenged aristocratic and ecclesiastic power in the West, such countercultural norms supported claims for rights to self-expression and critical liberty that partially contradicted the property rights and rule of law that were established. Otherwise unleashed by the dissolution of ideological holism however, the critical freedom (Habermas 1989, p. 28) aorded by liberal citizenship norms consistently risks marginalisation as utopian romanticism, or ossication as parochial and domesticated mannerism. From within a perspective similar to that developed here, others have argued for an approach which recognises that the price paid by critique for being listened to, at least in part, is to see some of the values it has mobilized to oppose [a prevailing order] being placed at the service (Boltanski and Chiapello 2005, p. 29) of historically embedded structures and institutions. Hence, the point is not so much that liberalist interpretations of the role and functioning of the liberal-democratic state are inherently reactionary (Habermas 1989, p. 136). Rather, it is to argue that both mainstream emphases upon possessive individualism, valuing productive engagement, progress and modernisation as an end in itself (Macpherson 1962) and countercultural values of self-realisation, personal autonomy, authenticity and creativity manifested under societal principles of freedom (of choice), (formal) equality and (maximal) utility. In short, possibilities for confronting existing conditions as unjust are formalised with the instituting of liberal citizenship, yet these continually risk being subjugated to interests sustained by institutions that privilege (administrative) eciency and (economic) growth. The political terrain of liberal democracies in this sense appears geared to the defence of particular interests against claims that some or other alternative represents holistic interests. Traversing often contradictory registers of value, liberal citizenship norms are held in common as an unstable basis for ameliorating political tensions and settling ethical contradictions in Western liberal democracies. With this historical outline in mind, discussion now turns to examine, briey, relatively recent historical shifts in prevailing ideas of citizenship, before taking up in detail the substantive discussion of stakeholder citizenship and the ecological challenge. By the 1940s, Western liberal-democratic citizens indignation at rampant exploitation and egoism (Boltanski and Chiapello 2005, pp. 345346) had challenged the prevalence of what is described here as classical liberal citizenship. Instituted as a means for redistributing the material wealth generated by modernisation, a form of social citizenship arose, partially to ameliorate some of modernisations worst excesses, at least within the West (Valdivielso 2005, p. 240). Classical liberal individual rights to equality were transformed into social rights to material well-being, and the means to achieve it through education, healthcare and leisure consumption. Meanwhile, classical liberal duties morphed to encompass social commitments to full-time work and participation within a productive, market-oriented nation-building state (Valdivielso 2005, pp. 241242, Marshall 1965).

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

Environmental Politics

473

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

Later, in the 1970s and 1980s, an artistic critique arose to challenge social citizenship norms as sources of psychic repression and conformity. Confronted by expectations of full-time employment and stultifying bureaucracy, this counter-culturally grounded challenge sought to raise the value of autonomy and alterity. However, such calls for heightened valuation of personal creativity and authenticity at work, and less homogeneity and conformity in social life also coincided with employer demands for greater workforce exibility and the partial exhaustion of mass-produced personal use commodities markets (Frank 1997). These more recent transformations in Western citizenship can thus be understood in terms of the post-industrialisation that has demanded relatively well-educated and exible workforces, as well as oered relatively greater individual creative choice in personal-use commodity consumption, amongst other things. In this argument, Western political and business leaders, by turns perplexed and worried amidst a deep-seated legitimation crisis (Habermas 1975), slowly took to embracing an increasingly popular rejection of all forms of disciplinary regulation (Boltanski and Chiapello 2005, p. 419). In this sense, what emerged by the 1990s were highly deregulated employment markets and a consumer culture oriented to creating individual opportunities for authenticity of experience and creative self-expression (Frank 2000, Bauman 2008). Put succinctly by Axel Honneth (2004, p. 474), The individualism of self-realization, gradually emergent over the course of the past fty years, has since been transmuted having become an instrument of economic development . . . into an emotionally fossilized set of demands under whose consequences individuals today seem more likely to suer than to prosper. Not just the warm, fuzzy feeling you get from buying free-range eggs . . . From within this perspective, current political party and business presentations to stakeholder citizens raise a particular order of problems for advocating green politics. Although major Western parties dier in important ways, they all now seem to compound classical liberal appeals to citizens as bearers of rights and duties and social calls to citizens as productive consumers with calls to stakeholders: holders of personal capabilities and responsibilities. Such appeals present the state, businesses, localised communities and individuals as self-orienting competitors in an irresistible, juggernaut-like globalising stakeholder capitalism (Callinicos 2000, Burkitt and Ashton 1996). It is purported that Individuals well endowed with economic and social capabilities will be more productive [and] companies that draw on the experience of all of their stakeholders will be more ecient, while the social cohesion this produces is require[d] for international competitiveness (Kelly et al. 1997, p. 244). Such ideas portray government support for economic and personal growth as the sole condition for creating and distributing social goods, such as sustainability. Indeed, its proponents dene stakeholder citizenship as the ethical and human capital development of the self organized around the possession of stakes (Prabhakar 2003, p. 347).

474

A. Scerri

In this sense, participating in creating social goods is represented as an instrumental benet: available through the exercise of preferences, made possible through individual achievements in the pursuit of aspirational goals. Sustainability is proered as if solutions to socially created problems were always synonymous with expedience in the private realm of autonomous sovereign choice: the product of individuals embracing creative opportunities and imagination-driven initiatives. Sustainability in these ways emerges as the product of governmental management of markets in ways that channel the trickle-down of stakeholder opportunities to develop capacities and participate in the economy through employment and training, consumption and investing or community participation (Clarke 2007). This synthesis of the free-market revolution and the welfarism that preceded it (Freedland 2006, p. 13) addresses stakeholders as deeply individuated, autonomous and creative agents, engaged in maximising personal utility through eorts to enhance private capacities and discharge individual responsibilities in reexive and worldly-aware ways. This emphasis upon atomistic voluntarism and personal-use commodity consumption compromises many of the normative frameworks through which people in the West might act to ameliorate some of the political tensions that the ecological challenge raises. To reiterate the articles central argument, the prevalence of such norms make it dicult to implement key green political ideas. These stakeholder norms compromise, amongst other things, justication for calls to move away from anthropocentric instrumentalism, a supplychain anchored solely in consumers revealed preferences, or for regulatory or quasi-regulatory spokespersons or environmental defenders oces (Dobson 1996, p. 165, Eckersley 2000, p. 130). By creating and extending conditions for enlightened personal autonomy and consumer choice, such policymaking engages citizens as atomistic individuals, exercising self-reexivity without reference to meanings beyond those of self-empowerment to maximise utility. Subtle shifts in the meaning of sustainability have indeed coincided with the embrace by global business of stakeholder citizenship. While the term sustainable consumption entered the international policy arena at Rio . . . its denition narrowed as it became a policy goal, such that market failures are now understood as the prime cause of unsustainability (Seyfang 2005, pp. 292293, Zarsky 2002, p. 15). Meanwhile, concerns with smaller scales and economic entities have become the mainstay of business concerns with the environment (Atkinson 2000, pp. 235236). In this sense, emphases upon stakeholders in corporate sustainability initiatives combine neoliberal emphasis on laissez-faire with a voluntarism that make[s] doing well, doing good (Lazonick and OSullivan 2000, p. 14; and see Benio and Southwick 2003):
Sustainability is not just the warm, fuzzy feeling you get from buying free-range eggs. Its a management philosophy. [It] takes in a broader base the stakeholders . . . not just a companys investors but also its employees, customers,

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

Environmental Politics

475

suppliers, and the community at large. Where in the past they would not have given a ying forethought to sustainable development, todays global consumers not only know whats happening across the ocean some two to 12 thousand miles away they also care. (Haddock 1999, p. 2425)

As do the political proponents of stakeholder citizenship, those promoting corporate sustainability urge a global order based in caring, sharing corporations, and actively pursue a new era of capitalism wherein stakeholders unite in a shared purpose to achieve social and environmental responsibility (Elkington 2001, Knoepfel 2001). This new era is said to supplant a failed and substantively dierent antecedent. The new era of capitalism, and its new social realities, unleashes a nature-like tendency for high-technology, nance and consumptioncentred service industries to engender opportunities for imaginativeness, creativity and regeneration (Lagan 2003, p. 23, Clarke 2007). Indeed, topdown management, full-time workforces and big government restrain good corporate citizens and limit stakeholders to regulated, oppressive and conformity-driven heavy industry (Healy 2004, p. 293). Of course, the unsustainability, and the oppressive and often exploitative nature of the work in heavy industrial settings lay beyond dispute. However, by tying degradation of the ecosphere to claims that these oered little in the way of creative opportunities for self-orienting individuals, stakeholder citizenship emphasises self-responsibility and atomistic voluntarism as if these were sucient for a society to come to grips with the ecological problem. Represented as the way of life natural to creative or knowledge societies, stakeholder citizenship de-emphasises the environmental consequences of postindustrialisation, precisely at a time when citizens are more likely to recognise environmental issues in general. Stakeholder-oriented reforms extend marketlike conditions into everyday life on the assumption that these always generate a spill-over that will aect the social shaping of natural environments in sustainable ways. These aspects of stakeholder citizenship are thus also problematic in relation to the contemporary workplace. Compassionate organizations currently oer stakeholder-employees an exciting, fullling place to work, where blended selves may fail to distinguish between work and play, and their search for meaningful experiences may cause them to gravitate towards activities that are stimulating emotionally as well as intellectually (Hill and Stephens 2003, p. 339). For Shoshanna Zubo (2004, p. 97), compassionate organizations unleash greater stakeholder freedom of choice and creative energy that facilitates well-being and sustainability. In Linda Grattons view, democratic enterprises are renewing democracy, because encouraging negotiation over creating lives of meaning: the purpose and destiny of the company is also [stakeholders] purpose and destiny (cited in Caulkin 2004, p. 5). That such emphasis upon creativity and exibility thinly veils heightened levels of dismay and anxiety with the new world of work is a moot point (Ehrenreich 2006, Sennett 2005). However, when business goes beyond

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

476

A. Scerri

nancial obligations to shareholders and care[s] for people and the environment (Gilding 2002, p. 54), claims that work practices might be exploitative or polluting are dicult to sustain. What remains are opportunities to exercise personal exibility through individual autonomy and reciprocal obligations (Gratton in Caulkin 2004, p. 5). The nexus of stakeholder citizenship and corporate sustainability does not so much as nullify possibilities that the world might be problematic for stakeholders. Rather, it occludes possibilities for resolving problems on terms other than those of augmenting individual autonomy and personal sovereignty. What is occluded or obscured are possibilities that prevailing criteria for value might be negotiated beyond expectations that stakeholder-citizens or stakeholder-communities always benet from ever-increasing growth and eciency. Stakeholders demand only consultation over how these ends may best be achieved. The normative premise instantiated here is that stakeholders always aim to maximise utility by performing at [their] best on the playing eld of the workplace (Stevens 2004, p. 40). Stakeholder negotiation and consultation stands in for commitments to legitimating criteria for value on holistic terms. This tends to subjugate interests held in common to eciency and growth criteria. Indeed, acting in concert to regulate or diminish stakeholder choice or exibility would reduce opportunities. Hence, stakeholder citizenship eectively mutes a particular order of challenges to exploitative or polluting practices. These marginalise, without silencing, claims that government or corporate eorts can and do often fall short of sustainable and so, just and reasonable objectives. For example, Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum consistently emphasise good stakeholder relations, and represent themselves as green businesses engaged in stakeholder consultations to achieve sustainability (Shell 2008, BP 2008).3 However, both rms have recently reduced by relatively large sums their eorts to develop sustainable practices, and redirected funds into more lucrative but also more polluting industries, such as the Canadian tar sands (Macalister 2008). The widely disseminated green public prole of such rms does not so much make it more dicult to criticise them, although this may be the case. Rather, the point made here is that the emphasis of such rms on stakeholder interests, and corporate actions to address these, recasts criticism of them as contrarian griping. When a rm that goes beyond petroleum, or one that is integrating social and environmental concerns into our decision-making (Shell 2008, BP 2008), reduces its spending on renewable energy sources, even considerably, claims that this is a problem appear extreme or uncompromising. This is especially the case when environmental groups encourage industry innovation by naming the laggards and promoting the innovators (Richter 2002, p. 32). Stakeholder values, such as the shared purpose and endless rounds of stakeholder consultations and engagements encourage a delimited form of managed criticism. By the late the 1990s and into the 2000s, increasing numbers of businesses across a range of industries, often supported by governments and civil

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

Environmental Politics

477

organisations, distributed goods and services oering social messages (Campbell 2002, p. 22). These combine appeals to consumers sovereign desires with social or environmental issues. Such oers coincide with an emphasis within the discourses of stakeholder citizenship upon self-creativity and pro-activeness. Green messaging campaigns, and green consumerism itself, appear mobilised by citizens expressions of concern over environmental issues. Indeed, it has been suggested that scientists calls for fundamental changes in lifestyle and consumption patterns in the 1980s prompted a wave of green consumerism [that] was thereafter quickly established as an essential ingredient of the business cultures plan to save the planet. And, that the popular media fell over each other in the rush to [use scientic knowledges to] inform the public about their new responsibility to consume with green discrimination (Gosden 1995, p. 35, Grayson 1989, p. 27). While public green awareness has emerged as a target market for the purveyors of consumer items, citizens themselves are called upon to pro-actively participate in personal use commodities markets as a way of engaging in democracy through the wallet (Rayner et al. 2002). Seen in this way, stakeholder norms deepen the individuation of ethical reection while de-politicising the productionconsumption chains that, in practice, remain sources of the ethical dilemmas that green consumption is set to resolving. Although many such campaigns go some way to alerting consumers of the politics of global consumptionproduction regimes, the point remains that personal acts of consumption stand-in for citizens ethico-political commitments. In the place of engaging in a regulating body-politic, individual citizens are called upon to take initiatives and shoulder responsibilities themselves. Governments and business now do commitments for citizens, who merely enact stakeholder capacities or responsibilities in nation-states that are going for green (Collins 2003, p. 202) or when working or shopping for the products of responsible rms (Stoney and Winstanley 2001, p. 609). In this sense, the ethico-political consequences of personal actions are eectively subsumed by demands that citizens exercise self-interest as green consumers. Citizens ethical commitments within the ecosphere are deferred onto activist organisations supporting green business that are, in the absence of green regulation, subjected to pressure from uninvolved or greenwashing competitors. What emerges is a kind of articial ethics-lite, whereby abstract and mediated consumer choices express commitment to an externalised environment. Alongside the liberalisation of nance and trade, the global reach of Western citizens demand for green products in this sense contributes to an emergent world market for norms (Supiot 2006), while responsibility for conditions that are in large part created by markets come to rest in individual choices. Where the creation of professional conditions for people [is] such that . . . their capabilities and economic needs are suciently assured to allow them to take initiatives and shoulder responsibilities (Supiot 2006, p. 109), enlightened stakeholder-citizens are called upon to bear a burden for the lives of distant others. The sheer complexity of globalising productionconsumption chains, combined with the

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

478

A. Scerri

vicissitudes of the market and availability of information and counterinformation, often raises doubts about the veracity of green consumption networks ability to eect substantive change. This is said to increase ecoanxiety (Mol and Spaargaren 1993, pp. 443444). Such are conditions in which, across almost all socio-economic classes, neurotic citizens must self-author narratives of resolution to pressing existential problems. Seen alongside rising emphases upon stakeholder well-being, for example, green consumerism responds to perceived needs for soothing, appeasing, tranquillising, and, above all, [self-]managing anxieties and insecurities (Isin 2004, p. 226). In these respects, criticism of stakeholder citizenship norms relates most clearly to broader sociological concerns with increased individuation, whereby the problem of choice is now solved increasingly by the individual, whose capacity to act is coming to rest more and more on a reexive relationship between experience and cultural options, and less on collectively ordained knowledges (Delanty 2000, p. 161). In short, both relatively well-educated and articulate individuals and those on the margins are being asked to autonomously and creatively self-orient (Beck and Beck-Gernscheim 2002, Giddens 1991, Joas 1996), with a result that identity is in the process of being redened as pure self-reexive capacity or selfawareness (Melucci 1996, p. 36). The norms described here as currently prevailing in Western liberal democracies privilege autonomous individuals subjectively agonising over questions of personal capacity and responsibility (James and Scerri 2006). That is, stakeholder-citizens are asked to orient themselves in ways that do not involve reecting upon questions of how personal actions, in the sense that these represent practices in common, sustain or challenge the structuring of criteria for value in society. Seen in this way, stakeholder citizenship norms return the ethico-political consequences of engaging in social life as the remnants of reexive sovereign choice over how to maximise utility. In the context of widespread but uneven auence, individuated ethical reections readily gain expression as choices to consume green products or aspirations to build personal capacities. The emphasis of stakeholder citizenship upon economic and personal growth tends to frame the ethical considerations that provide motives for political action as gradations of quality in the realm of personal-use commodity consumption. That is, green political problems become aestheticised as creative decisions. Such conditions make it dicult to act upon ethical commitments because obfuscating connections between private moral choices and the collective justication of reasons for acting. Eorts to organise a life in common are in this way subsumed by the collectively organised privileging of privatised desires. Stakeholder citizenship belies state and market eorts to assuage environmental problems, while citizen pressure upon them to take resolute actions is diluted. This decreases possibilities for acting upon recognition that the values made manifest in everyday practices can be sources of unsustainability. These, instead, are managed on behalf of stakeholders who are left to negotiate their own ways amidst an often attractive yet sometimes disorienting

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

Environmental Politics

479

array of desire options. In the contemporary West, possibilities for achieving sustainability fall foul of a way of life that, while free to exercise sovereign choices over a plethora of opportunities, is increasingly cut-o from political that is, value- and so power-laden commitments to inhabiting the ecosphere on ethical terms. Conclusion Increased societal individuation, and the resulting pressure to self-orient reexively, leaves stakeholders to grapple with worldly dilemmas on atomistic terms. While a certain vitality may accompany the uncertainty of contemporary employment markets, or the feeling of being well-informed about further news of climate change, acting upon these coincides with recognition that possibilities for contributing to resolving them on terms other than as personal problems appear remote. In these respects, stakeholder citizenship norms create possibilities for negotiating over subjective situatedness within society (Elliott and Lemert 2006). Indeed, such possibilities are central to the principles of liberty, equality and common interest that anchor and impel sociality in the West. However, stakeholder citizenship atomises the means by which persons legitimate particular social practices: as has been argued, citizenship is lived as the held-in-common grounding for ameliorating political tensions in Western liberal democracies. Widely supported by government, business and, increasingly, civil organisations engaged in promoting the innovators (Richter 2002, p. 32), stakeholder citizenship leaves persons to work out, on their own, ways of addressing ethical and political problems. Amidst the initial ush of green political activity in the 1970s and 1980s it was said that the protest against the disruption of natural equilibriums has for the rst time in public opinion placed a check on modern articialism (Dumont 1986, p. 217). Relatively increased and sustained awareness of environmental problems since then suggests that implementing such a check remains a pressing issue for many in the West. Paradoxically, citizen demands for a check upon modern social practices that privilege objectifying an externalised reality have transformed, and have largely become commensurate with institutionalised demands for self-improvement. The argument of the present article has been that, alongside the defusing of protest at environmental damage, actions aimed at placing a check on modern articialism now support many of the conditions that exacerbate it. That is, stakeholder citizenship norms represent a metamorphosis in possibilities for putting environmental awareness into practice. On the one hand, relatively generalised increases in education imply raised awareness that there is something drastically wrong with the ecosphere, and that Western citizens are contributing to this. An array of countercultural challenges to mainstream modernist culture, and its inherent articialism, has fostered such protest. On the other hand, the rise to predominance of stakeholder citizenship norms represents the partial incorporating of such challenges into the structures and institutions of the

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

480

A. Scerri

globalising West. Hitherto countercultural claims said here to seek to justify nature in relation to social norms readily gain expression as atomistic selfemendation or leisure consumption: in conditions that privilege stakeholder citizenship, the challenge to modern articialism of such claims is no longer a given. What this discussion has found is that links between private (ecological) morality and public (ecological) reasons or justications are deeply problematic in the contemporary West. In relation to problems of green political advocacy, my argument here has been that stakeholder citizenship norms make it dicult to put sustainability into practice, while placing the unsustainability of much social activity beyond question. In terms of changing citizenship norms over time, this argument implies communicating the ecological challenge as a political problem. That is, addressing ecological issues in the West might in this view be seen to involve making explicit how value- and power-laden relations aect negotiating over possible solutions to them. Even the best of intentions are confuted in consultations that ignore the inuence of eciency and growth criteria. In micro-sociological terms, this understanding of stakeholder citizenship norms highlights a need for emphasising ethical over moral arguments for change. The moral arguments have been made and, as high levels of environmental awareness across the population show, by and large won by greens. In this sense, implicit throughout the argument presented here has been a claim that the task of putting public awareness of environmental issues into practice is inseparable from that of working to enhance political solidarity. The pressing need within the West is for a politics of shared and not personal responsibility. The point is that, largely, citizens recognise hard science knowledges that the ecological challenge is pressing. The greater problem lay in communicating social and political science understandings of how citizens, as the embodied practitioners of a particular way of life, create and reproduce the commonalities and continuities out of which are constituted the values by which they live. On this view, the personal dimensions of the ecological challenge remain important: citizenship is thus seen as a cultural learning condition (Delanty 2003). While concepts of critical sustainability citizenship are not new (see, for example Barry 2006), recognising the predominance of stakeholder citizenship norms in the West raises a need for understanding personal virtues as commitments, and as the products of a social existence. Of course, for advocates of green politics, these centre upon the very dicult tasks of realising shared political will, and applying it to changing human actions within the ecosphere. Moreover, this is not to argue for advocating collectivism or communalism, although in many cases this may be desirable. Rather, it raises a need for reframing citizenship norms. This may take the form of calls for regulation of market activities, the regularisation of sustainable and so fair trade practices or for green education, for example. Such examples may produce and reproduce conditions in which citizens are called upon to exercise rights and duties as expressions of held-in-common commitments to improving

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

Environmental Politics

481

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

social and personal capacities, and fullling collective and private responsibilities. While calls for legal protection for individual green whistleblowers are important, my argument also raises a need for greens to advocate laws that support a greening of, and support for green action by, trades unions and civil groups in exposing polluting businesses or unsustainable state agencies. Other calls, for increased public transport, or the privileging of locally-oriented productionconsumption networks and cooperatives or wilderness preserves, for example, may help to produce and reproduce such commitments by example. Green political advocates might point to eorts such as these as examples of ways that a society, constituted by citizens acting in common, is facing the ecological challenge. Greens may need to be more cautious about involvement in advocating representations of citizenship as atomism directed at emending the self. Acknowledgements
I thank the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, Dr Anne McNevin for her insightful remarks on early versions of this article and Prof. Paul James for his enthusiastic support of my work and ideas.

Notes
1. The concept of modern articialism in this sense constitutes the culturalideological enframing for what environmental philosophers, such as Val Plumwood, Arne Naess or Arran Gare, explain as the distinction between nature and culture (Plumwood 1991, Naess 1973, Gare 1995). In this sense, the objective of the present article is to draw attention to some of the particularities of the ecological challenge, as manifested within the Western liberal democracies over historical time. The conceptual framework outlined by the article therefore highlights a distinct historical situation or framing of a much wider and deeper problem. Although beyond the ambit of the present article, it may be suggested that increased consumption and the relative exibility of production consumption practices that globalisation brings mean that the ecological challenge is posed on dierent terms in non-Western societies. Indeed, the task of advocating a shift in citizenship practices towards sustainability confronts a dierent set of obstacles in China or India, for example, wherein citizenship might not be understood in terms of individualist cultural or liberal political ideologies. Moreover, the present article also recognises the spectral prospect that some of the most pressing barriers to implementing global sustainability, such as the macroscale problems of biodiversity loss and climate change, necessitate geopolitical solutions and as such, may render any citizenship ideal largely irrelevant. References to stakeholders appear 766 and to stakeholder consultation 336 times on the Shell website and 957 and 102 times on the BP website (Shell 2008, BP 2008). Interestingly, ExxonMobil, which strongly resists attempts to foist green initiatives upon it by activists and its shareholders (Clark 2008), does not reference stakeholders on its website (ExxonMobil 2008).

2.

3.

References
Agyeman, J. and Evans, B., 2006. Overcoming obstacles to ecological citizenship: the dominant social paradigm and local environmentalism. In: A. Dobson and D. Bell, eds. Environmental citizenship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 153184.

482

A. Scerri

Atkinson, G., 2000. Measuring corporate sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43 (2), 235252. Barry, J., 2006. Resistance is fertile: from environmental to sustainability citizenship. In: A. Dobson and D. Bell, eds. Environmental citizenship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2148. Barry, J., 2007. Review: Denaturalizing ecological politics: alienation from nature from Rousseau to the Frankfurt School and beyond by Andrew Biro. Environmental Politics, 17 (4), 688689. Bauman, Z., 2008. Does ethics have a chance in a world of consumers?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E., 2002. Individualization, trans. P. Camiller. London: Sage. Beder, S., 2000. Global spin: the corporate assault on environmentalism. Melbourne: Scribe. Benio, M. and Southwick, K., 2003. Compassionate capitalism: how corporations can make doing good an integral part of doing well. New York: Career Press. Biro, A., 2005. Denaturalizing ecological politics: alienation from nature from Rousseau to the Frankfurt School and beyond. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Boltanski, L. and Chiapello, E., 2005[1999]. The new spirit of capitalism, trans. G. Elliott. London: Verso. British Petroleum, 2008. Available from: http://www.bp.com [Accessed 6 June]. Burkitt, B. and Ashton, F., 1996. The birth of the stakeholder society. Critical Social Policy, 16 (49), 316. Callinicos, A., 2000. Equality. Cambridge: Polity. Campbell, D., 2002. Social messages now in fashion. Guardian Weekly, 39 October, p. 22. Caulkin, S., 2004. Taking oce politics to the barricades: an interview with Lynda Gratton. Guardian Weekly, 410 March, p. 5. Clark, A., 2008. Exxon shareholders fail to show strong support for green mandate. Guardian, 28 May. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/ 28/useconomy.oil [Accessed 28 May 2008]. Clarke, J., 2007. Unsettled connections: citizens, consumers, and the reform of public services. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7 (2), 159178. Collins, A.J., 2003. Can we learn to live dierently? Lessons from Going for Green. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27 (3), 202211. Dagger, R., 2006. Freedom and rights. In: A. Dobson and R. Eckersley, eds. Political theory and the ecological challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200 215. Delanty, G., 2000. Modernity and postmodernity: knowledge, power, and the self. London: Sage. Delanty, G., 2003. Citizenship as a learning process: disciplinary citizenship versus cultural citizenship. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22 (6), 547560. Dobson, A., 1996. Representative democracy and the environment. In: W. Laerty and J. Meadowcroft, eds. Democracy and the environment: problems and prospects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 124139. Dobson, A., 2003. Citizenship and the environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dobson, A., 2006. Citizenship. In: A. Dobson and R. Eckersley, eds. Political theory and the ecological challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 216231. Dobson, A. and Bell, D., 2006. Introduction. In: A. Dobson and D. Bell, eds. Environmental citizenship. Cambridge: MIT Press, 118. ., 2005. Introduction. Environmental Politics, 14 (2), iz, A Dobson, A. and Valencia Sa 195210.

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

Environmental Politics

483

Dumont, L., 1986. Essays on individualism: modern ideology in anthropological perspective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dumont, L. and Delacampagne, C., 1981. Louis Dumont and the Indian Mirror. RAIN, 43, 47. Eckersley, R., 2000. Deliberative democracy, ecological representation and risk: towards a democracy of the aected. In: M. Saward, ed. Democratic innovation: deliberation, representation and association. London: Routledge, 117132. Ehrenreich, B., 2006. Bait and switch: the futile pursuit of the corporate dream. London: Granta. Elkington, J., 2001. The chrysalis economy. Oxford: Capstone. Elliott, A. and Lemert, C., 2006. The new individualism: the emotional costs of globalization. London: Routledge. ExxonMobil, 2008. Available from: http://www.exxon.com [Accessed 6 June 2008]. Frank, T., 1997. The conquest of cool: business culture, counterculture, and the rise of hip consumerism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Frank, T., 2000. One market under god: extreme capitalism, market populism, and the end of economic democracy. London: Vintage. Freedland, J., 2006. Public goods, private means. Guardian Weekly, 1925 May, p. 13. Gare, A., 1995. Postmodernism and the environmental crisis. London: Routledge. Giddens, A., 1990. The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity. Giddens, A., 1991. Modernity and self identity. Cambridge: Polity. Gilding, P., 2002. Single bottom line sustainability. The Sydney Papers, 5360. Gosden, R., 1995. Greening all the way to the bank. Arena Magazine, 12, 3537. Grayson, I., 1989. Green consumerism. Chain Reaction, (Autumn), 2729. Greenspan-Bell, R., 2006. Kyoto placebo. Issues in Science and Technology, (Winter), 2831. Guha, K., 2004. Sign of the times as wealth gap widens. Financial Times, 20 August, p. 3. Habermas, J., 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society, trans. T. Burger and F. Lawrence. Boston, MA: Polity/MIT Press. Habermas, J., 1975. Legitimation crisis, trans. T. McCarthy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Haddock, F., 1999. Corporate angels. Global Finance, 13 (12), 2427. Hamilton, C., 2006. Whats left? The death of social democracy. Quarterly Essay, 21, 169. Healy, R.G., 2004. Corporate environmentalism and public policy. Human Ecology Review, 11 (3), 292294. Hill, R.P. and Stephens, D.L., 2003. The compassionate organisation in the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 32 (4), 331341. Honneth, A., 2004. Organized self-realization: some paradoxes of individualization. European Journal of Social Theory, 7 (4), 463478. Isin, E.F., 2004. The neurotic citizen. Citizenship Studies, 8 (3), 217235. James, P. and Scerri, A., 2006. Globalizing life-worlds: the uneven structures of globalizing capitalism. In: P. Darby, ed. Postcolonizing the international. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 73102. Jenkins, S., 2006. Thatcher and sons: a revolution in three acts. London: Penguin. Joas, H., 1996. The creativity of action, trans. J. Gaines and P. Keast. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kelly, G., Kelly, D., and Gamble, A., 1997. Stakeholder capitalism. London: Macmillan. Knoepfel, I., 2001. Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index: a global benchmark for corporate sustainability. International Journal of Corporate Sustainability, 8 (1), 615.

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

484

A. Scerri

Lagan, A., 2003. A revolution to nd value in common ground. Australian Financial Review, 29 May, p. 23. Latta, A., 2007. Locating democratic politics in ecological citizenship. Environmental Politics, 16 (3), 377393. Lazonick, W. and OSullivan, M., 2000. Maximizing shareholder value: a new ideology for corporate governance. Economy and Society, 29 (1), 1335. Macalister, T., 2008. Winds of change: Shell ditches renewable stake amid fears of a retreat into carbon. Guardian, 1 May. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/ business/2008/may/01/royaldutchshell.oil [Accessed 6 June 2008]. Macpherson, C.B., 1962. The political theory of possessive individualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marshall, T.H., 1965. Class, citizenship, and social development. New York: Free Press. Martinez-Alier, J., 2002. Environmentalism of the poor: a study of ecological conicts and evaluation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Melucci, A., 1996. The playing self: person and meaning in the planetary society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mol, A.P.J. and Spaargaren, G., 1993. Environment, modernity and the risk-society. International Sociology, 8 (4), 431459. Monbiot, G. and Prescott, M., 2006. Heat. London: Allen Lane. Mukerji, C., 1983. From graven images: patterns of modern materialism. New York: Columbia University Press. Naess, A., 1973. The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. Inquiry, 16, 95100. Nash, N. and Lewis, A., 2005. Overcoming obstacles to environmental citizenship: the dominant social paradigm and local environmentalism. In: A. Dobson and D. Bell, eds. Environmental citizenship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 5063. Plumwood, V., 1999. Inequality, ecojustice and ecological rationality. Ecotheology, 5/6, 185218. Polanyi, K., 2001[1944]. The great transformation. New York: Beacon Books. Prabhakar, R., 2003. Stakeholding: does it possess a stable core? Journal of Political Ideologies, 8 (3), 347363. Rayner, M., Harrison, R., and Irving, S., 2002. Ethical consumerism: democracy through the wallet. Journal of Research for Consumers, 3, 112. Richter, M., 2002. Shaming, naming and giving credit: how environmentalists can set boundaries and build a civil society. Ecopolitics, 1 (4), 3135. Royal Dutch Shell, 2008. Available from: http://www.shell.com [Accessed 6 June 2008]. Sahlins, M., 1972. Stone age economics. London: Tavistock. Sennett, R., 2005. The culture of the new capitalism. London: Yale University Press. Seyfang, G., 2005. Shopping for sustainability: can sustainable consumption promote ecological citizenship. Environmental Politics, 14 (2), 290306. Seyfang, G. and Smith, A., 2007. Grassroots innovation for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16 (4), 584603. Smith, D., 2005. Green citizenship and the social economy. Environmental Politics, 14 (2), 273289. Stevens, M., 2004. Present dangers. Risk and Insurance, 15 (3), 4042. Stoney, C. and Winstanley, D., 2001. Stakeholding: confusion or Utopia? Mapping the conceptual terrain. Journal of Management Studies, 38 (5), 603626. Supiot, A., 2006. Law and labour: a world market of norms? New Left Review, II (39), 109121. Supiot, A., 2007[2005]. Homo juridicus: on the anthropological function of the law, trans. S. Brown. London: Verso. Valdivielso, J., 2005. Social citizenship and the environment. Environmental Politics, 14 (2), 239254.

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011

Environmental Politics

485

van der Heijden, H.-A., 2007. Review: Environmental citizenship, 2006. Environmental Politics, 16 (1), 160161. Weber, M., 1958. From Max Weber: essays in sociology, trans. H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills. New York: Oxford University Press. Zarsky, L., 2002. Beyond good deeds: for multinational corporations to adopt socially responsible business practices, voluntary measures are not enough. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 16 (4), 1423. Zubo, S., 2004. Evolving: a call to action. Fast Company, 78, 9798.

Downloaded by [220.255.2.121] at 02:21 02 July 2011